Ok so. First, we have to interrogate meaning. When a South Florida redneck sees a BLM march and demands that All Lives Matter, that South Florida redneck is likely threatened, and thinks that black people gaining equality means him losing something. His meaning is rooted in racism. His belief, whether he acknowledges it, speaks it, whatever, is that the see-saw of racial balance in this country needs to remain uneven and in his favor. He's a racist.

Is that Pelosi's intent? Her meaning? Do you think Pelosi is a racist? Is Pelosi on par with the South Florida (or rural Indiana, or Alabama, or Geneva IL) racists who use that phrase? Or was she trying, without much elegance, to bring women and others into a statement about equality? The whole quote includes her basically saying "It's time for more than just white guys to rule." Here it is:

Quote:

I support the recognition that black lives matter, for sure. And I have incorporated that in many of my statements. All lives matter. We really have to redress past grievances in terms of how we addressed the African-American community. I think that we’re all working together. Every part of our community, whether it’s the immigrant community, whether it’s the black community, whether it’s women’s community, and the rest. Not only matter, but rule.

Is that quote a quote from someone who is being dismissive of BLM? I vote no. If, say, Geddy or some other progressive member of this board wrote that phrase would you jump to say "AHA YOU'RE NOT ONE OF US!!!" or would you think that maybe that poster chose his words poorly. If you took the three words--all lives matter--out of the phrase, what are you left with? Certainly it's problematic that she used those words but I think it's utter horsecrap that people are painting Pelosi, a SF liberal if ever there was one, as being problematic on race. What's her voting record on civil rights? She's been voting in Congress for almost 30 years, positively, on stuff like motor voter laws (allows folks to register to vote when getting a drivers license) and similar issues that we as progressives believe in. But seriously let's run her through the [expletive] mud because she chose her words poorly once. Let's act like a woman instrumental in Lilly Ledbetter and other progressive measures isn't one of us because....what? Too old? Not far enough to the left? Puh-leeze.

We are headed into a repeat of 2016 in which we take down people on our side and the alt-right lines up behind their [expletive] Nazi leader and we get another four years of Trump.

So are you literally just going to repeat the same thing over and over and over again until Nov 2020? Should be fun.

Depends on if the progressives on the board are going to stop trash talking every establishment Dem until Nov 2020, helping splinter something that needs to remain whole to win the White House. When y'all stop pretending HRC or Pelosi or Schumer are the enemy and understand that they're rather important pieces in the movement and that we need all the Dems to get to where we want to be, I'll stop reminding you that it's counterproductive to tear them down. Deal?

So are you literally just going to repeat the same thing over and over and over again until Nov 2020? Should be fun.

Depends on if the progressives on the board are going to stop trash talking every establishment Dem until Nov 2020, helping splinter something that needs to remain whole to win the White House. When y'all stop pretending HRC or Pelosi or Schumer are the enemy and understand that they're rather important pieces in the movement and that we need all the Dems to get to where we want to be, I'll stop reminding you that it's counterproductive to tear them down. Deal?

"Trash talking," or more accurately, pointing out their very real failings has been pretty effective in getting people who have been ignoring their responsibilities in favor of serving their corporate masters for decades to actually address their failings and change their behavior. I largely think the criticism is helping them run more effective campaigns and control the narrative around their governance. This is what has allowed the republicans to punch above their weight all these years. It's mostly a good thing.

Also, most of the party infighting exists completely off the radar of most voters. It can seem like a big deal to those of us who are extremely online, but it really isn't when it comes to actual elections.

"Trash talking," or more accurately, pointing out their very real failings has been pretty effective in getting people who have been ignoring their responsibilities in favor of serving their corporate masters for decades to actually address their failings and change their behavior.

Now put that in the context of the Pelosi quote and tell me how an online takedown of Pelosi is an effective way of fixing her attitudes about race, which aren't broken in the first place. And w/r/t "corporate masters", where was Pelosi on regulation of the banks, the polluters, etc?

As much as jim/MAGA has become a troll on this forum, I'll give him this: he was right, after the election, when he pointed out to all of us who were screaming about Trump that Trump and the GOP ran a winning campaign. It's an ugly mindset, that winning is all that matters in hindsight and to hell with the means, but it has a very high level of truth to it. Don't win elections and you can't govern the way you want. You have to win the war to fight the small battles. It's backwards, but he's right.

Now put that in the context of the Pelosi quote and tell me how an online takedown of Pelosi is an effective way of fixing her attitudes about race, which aren't broken in the first place.

Pelosi's quote didn't bother me. I have no doubts that Nancy Pelosi is on the righteous side of the BLM thing. Her mistake was down to age, being out of touch, and not being as deep in the online discourse wars. The pressure cooker of the internet changes terminology and small emphasis changes and she just doesn't have anyone around her to explain how saying "All Lives Matter" has become a loaded term with negative connotations. Said at face value, no one on the left can possibly dispute that all lives matter. That is a sacred tenant of social justice. Unfortunately the right has co-opted it as a way to fight black lives matter and distract from their real grievances by implying they believe that black lives matter more than others. Nancy is too old, rich, and confident in her legitimacy to care enough about getting that in the weeds of the discourse to know better.

33anda3rd wrote:

As much as jim/MAGA has become a troll on this forum, I'll give him this: he was right, after the election, when he pointed out to all of us who were screaming about Trump that Trump and the GOP ran a winning campaign. It's an ugly mindset, that winning is all that matters in hindsight and to hell with the means, but it has a very high level of truth to it. Don't win elections and you can't govern the way you want. You have to win the war to fight the small battles. It's backwards, but he's right.

Trump ran a winning campaign by being an outsider who didn't give a [expletive] and was outright hostile about respectability and virtue signaling. Pelosi saying all lives matter is the opposite of that. Bringing up the Trump campaign hurts your argument. He won specifically because he wouldn't stop talking [expletive] about the Republican party's Pelosi analogs.

Trump ran a winning campaign by being an outsider who didn't give a [expletive] and was outright hostile about respectability and virtue signaling. Pelosi saying all lives matter is the opposite of that. Bringing up the Trump campaign hurts your argument. He won specifically because he wouldn't stop talking [expletive] about the Republican party's Pelosi analogs.

He won because all the GOP people in the right places went out and voted for him. We can chop all the issues of 2016 up a lot of ways, but ultimately one of the big reasons he won is the GOP as a whole, the voters in their party, instead of condemning him voted for him. The centrists didn't scream on Facebook that he was too far right, they voted for him. The low-tax crowd who are hip socially didn't condemn him on anonymous internet message boards, they voted for him and kept quiet. The churchy voters didn't condemn his three marriages, his serial philandering, his bald-faced lying, his [expletive] grabbing, they kept quiet and voted for him.

ghost, intra-party fighting on issues is fine. Knocking down party members is not.